Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
Socialism in practice is: The government stealing wealth and/or enslaving people (a matter of semantics in the final analysis) and then using that wealth/productivity in the name of the common good (for people they say deserve it, sometimes).
That has been going on since the dawn of civilization. That is not qualitatively different from what a renaissance monarch was claiming to do.
What was different in the late 19th and 20th century was socialism as moral authority.
All socialists including fascists, marxists, nazis, syndicalists, etc... claim that because the state is working for the people and indeed perhaps an avatar of the people; everything it steals is justified and anyone who defies the duty is criminal.
This is distinct from the divine right of feudalism in which the moral authority came from god, the king might be doing it for the benefit of the people but that isn't his justification.
This is also distinct from government by consent of English liberalism (and for a short sweet period french liberalism). In that (american/revolutionary french) theory the state justifies its existence because it protects the rights of the people and when the people no longer consider their rights to be protected the state no long deserves to exist.
So it boils down to one simple difference: If you tell a socialist state they're screwing you; that's a "you" problem. If you tell a liberal state they're screwing you, that's a "them" problem.
There are contradictions baked into the US founding. The moral theory of english liberalism is incompatible with taxation, but we pretend. Thus we (as Korea pointed out) steal trillions, spend trillions in the name of the common good (just like a socialist state claims to do) and yet we claim to be against socialism and for government by consent.
Created:
Posted in:
Weren't you thrown out for a conspiracy to cheat the debate poll?
Why are you talking about security and stability? Role playing as the deep state?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A fair analogy.We know Congress does insider trading because of the hundreds of millions of dollars they accumulate while in office (Obama was one of the worst)But there's no possible way to detect it other than seeing the effects.
In more abstract terms: this is misapplied burden of proof.
We're not talking about a flying spaghetti monster or some distant object in space.
We're not even talking about convicting anyone of a crime (which does morally require proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
We're talking about a duty to produce and maintain a system that is one, both, or a hybrid of: verifiable (auditable), invulnerable to fraud
I am reminded of how easily the left-tribe resorts to statistics when it comes to rape (#meto), "systemic racism", and the dangers of covid.
For a left-triber to understand the monumental stupidity of suggesting that if no one is convicted there was no fraud imagine this: When told that masks and vaccinations are necessary, the response is "you haven't convicted me of having spreading covid".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Irrational and unacceptable."if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen"bingo
Created:
Posted in:
Correction: Of course they have signatures on file, how else could they verify?
Stupid of me, even my subconscious falls for the propaganda sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When there was a list you said "focus on one" when I focused on one, you said "it's not widespread".Again, it was a response to your assertion of wide spread lying and double standards.
I provided 11 examples, the list; the immediate context was going into the details of one of those examples. In that immediate context you start denying there is a wider pattern as a way to excuse the specific example.
I could give the 11 examples again, you would say "nah uh none of those are examples, for instance [starts talking about specific example]" I point out how the specific example is misinformation/false by the standards applied to narratives promoted by the propagandist and you'll go "oh there is no pattern though"
It's a big circle and I'm not following you around it.
If your best example fails under focused scrutiny
Which it most certainly did not.
Conspiracy size as small as one. Doesn't fail any test.There is no universe in which one person can pull off a nation wide conspiracy
There are muggings throughout the nation, but they are not a nationwide conspiracy.
The claims of security are (in your own phrasing): We now know the elections were secure because election officials told us soBecause the election officials in every state along with the people who counted the ballots, the supervisors they worked under, the officials they reported to, the officials tasked with verifying their results, the officials tasked with investigating allegations of fraud, the judges tasked with hearing the challenges, the secretaries of state responsible for the outcome, and the governors who signed off on them - who in many if not most cases were republicans who would have been acting against their own interests to do so fraudulently... Told us so.
Nice speech, problem is it's meaningless. Like citing laws against murder in Nazi Germany and then listing all the courts and police stations which would have to do nothing in order for the holocaust to happen.
people who counted the ballots -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulent
the supervisors they worked under -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulent
the officials they reported to -> could only check with the people who counted the ballots
the officials tasked with verifying their results -> could only check with the officials the ballot counters were reporting to (or the machines that counted the ballots and had no way of detecting fraudulent ones) and thus could not possibly fulfill their task
the officials tasked with investigating allegations of fraud ->were few, obstructed, demonized, and in no way capable of quantifying much less punishing the fraud
the judges tasked with hearing the challenges ->in almost every case dismissed on legal nonsense excuses like 'standing', as if there is a single citizen in the United States of America who isn't harmed by losing our democratic system; the rest of the cases they ignored blatant evidence because they refused to apply statistical projection and instead proceeded upon the laughable and cowardly premise that "if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen", which could best be analogized as finding $15 on the ground after a bank robbery and assuming that's how much was stolen and no harm was done because it was returned to the vault.
the secretaries of state responsible for the outcome -> could only go on what supervisors told them, and certainly did have more to lose by admitting the system was insecure than the alternative regardless of party since it was their job (among others) to keep the system secure.
and the governors who signed off on them - who in many if not most cases were republicans who would have been acting against their own interests to do so fraudulently... -> based on the indictments right now it doesn't look like they would have served their own interests very well by standing in the way of the deep state narrative.
And because the alternative would have required a significant number of them to be involved in a fraud conspiracy against their own interests.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.
Even the ones who paved the way for the fraud need not have known the purpose of their actions, they could have legitimately have believed they were "just handling an emergency" or "preventing voter suppression" or some such nonsense. Somebody knew though or it would never have been so well funded and planned. Much like "voter ID is racist", some people are stupid enough to believe that; but such a stupid idea could not possibly have come into existence or been maintained without the intent of fraud at the root.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Well not if you define an abstract concept as a concrete example:[Athias] It won't work because slaves, at least to my knowledge, do not participate and have not participated absent of duress in a system which redistributes the products of their coerced labor, all while taking moral position against slavery.
The unfairness is that you were asked for a definition of "participation" and gave a concrete example not a definition. I can infer from above that somehow "absent duress" is important.
Ayn Rand was not absent duress. The product of her labor was taken from her by force, thus her labor was partially coerced.
No one forced Rand to sign up (I've never seen it proven that she did), no one forces slaves to put above subsistence quality food in their mouth or beyond basic clothes on their back.
You imply that any action save for those specifically compelled that interacts with the system is somehow hypocrisy.
I say hypocrisy requires violation of a principle. There is no valid principle that states recovering some recompense is condoning the original or ongoing abuse.
True hypocrisy for Rand would be voting to expand or maintain a tax. True hypocrisy for a slave (who claimed all humans deserved to be free) would be owning a slave.
I see no reason to accept that exclusion as legitimate.If a robber stole your car and said you could have a wheel back if you fill in a forum, and you have no other means of gaining any value back that is your only countermeasure. If anything up to driving a tank to the robber's house and blowing him away (or having a mediation company do it for you) is justified then anything lesser is also justified.But here's the thing: are they giving you your wheel back, or just a wheel?
There is no way to tell.
By signing up, you are legitimizing/enabling the practice.
I disagree. If you extend that logic then voting is legitimizing/enabling the practice.
You creating a voluntary association trading that which was acquire through involuntary association.
It's not really a trade, but even if it was it wouldn't matter so long as for all intents and purposes you could claim that what you acquired is merely that which was stolen from you.
In what way does accepting government benefits enable the system?By providing demand to its supply.
So if you pretend that you have no needs or desires they will stop stealing? Now that's wishful thinking.
It's like sending your kid to private school while being forced to pay taxes for public school.No, it would be like sending your child to public school, while claiming to maintain a position against taxation (and by extension, products of taxation like public schooling) because you believe you are "redeeming some value" from that which was stolen from you.
I wasn't clear about "it's" this is analogous to claiming welfare and a slave accepting sugar and butter.
but it could be said that the act of simultaneously submitting to taxes AND allowing government services to be focused on fewer people is enabling behavior.Taxation is collected with the threat of (deadly) force; one signs up for social security benefits absent of duress; they are not the same.
No they are not the same, but the choice between Taxes and Taxes + Benefits is the question. If there is a moral preference it must be for Taxes + Benefits as that is more just in returning stolen goods and more likely to destroy the system of taxation (however slight the effect).
It's not about what the master thinks.
Then how does "providing demand for their supply" have any meaning?
The only possible benefit of not taking benefits would be to convince someone that you don't need those benefits and thus the taxation wasn't necessary in the first place. If the opinion of the oppressor (the one with the power to end the theft) is irrelevant then so is providing demand.
It may serve some poetic purpose to stand like a statue in a field while they whip you, but there is no moral basis for calling someone a hypocrite if they don't do that.Not the same. You've attempted several times to analogize "signing up"--and those are the operative terms--for social security to coercive practices like Slavery (I told you it wouldn't work.) No one places any obligation on the slave because the slave is under duress. The same is not true for those who collect social security.
All real world slavery is a combination of coercive and non-coercive interaction. Consider (as I implied above) a slave who is coerced to work, but offered butter and sugar to supplement flour rations that he or she can refuse.
Taxes are the coercive part. Welfare is the non-coercive part.
You are claiming that if a slave makes a pancake he or she is condoning slavery. I continue to find that absurd.
Created:
-->
@Athias
It won't work.
Well not if you define an abstract concept as a concrete example:
How do you define "participation"Applying for and receiving "Social Security Benefits."
... but that's not really a fair test of your statements is it?
She was not defending herself against the initiation of force and she was not acting in a "countermeasure"
I see no reason to accept that exclusion as legitimate.
If a robber stole your car and said you could have a wheel back if you fill in a forum, and you have no other means of gaining any value back that is your only countermeasure. If anything up to driving a tank to the robber's house and blowing him away (or having a mediation company do it for you) is justified then anything lesser is also justified.
If recovering that tire in some measurable and significant way aided the criminal in further theft there would be an argument, but it doesn't.
How can one take a position against stealing while enabling and participating in a system entirely based on stealing?
In what way does accepting government benefits enable the system? If anything it brings it to its rightful collapse sooner by showing it can't even deliver what it promised.
It's like sending your kid to private school while being forced to pay taxes for public school. That's not an act against the stability of the system, that's taking weight off the school system (which doesn't matter in the long run because government waste is unbounded); but it could be said that the act of simultaneously submitting to taxes AND allowing government services to be focused on fewer people is enabling behavior.
The equivalent in the slave plantation would be refusing rations, but going out after a hard day of labor and fishing for your own food. Does that convince the master that slavery isn't worth it? Hardly, he has to buy less grain for you now and it seems even more profitable.
It may serve some poetic purpose to stand like a statue in a field while they whip you, but there is no moral basis for calling someone a hypocrite if they don't do that. They have the right and the duty (if they value their life) to do the best they can until escape or counterattack becomes feasible. If working doesn't make you a hypocrite, why would accepting the fruits of your labor in whatever small quantity they are returned?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well now I need to make something clear, you do know there is no social security investment fund right? They never invested the SS payments into private stocks. It gets routed straight to the normal federal budget, which we know they don't use for investment. Roosevelt's want came to pass.It's a portfolio with a 100% investment in T-bills.
Oookkk, but the net result is the same. Let's not get confused by organized crime style book-keeping.
Treasury bills are where you give them USD and they promise to give you USD at some rate of return. If all your income buys T-bills all your income goes straight to the general federal budget.
Which are worth nothing as inflation rises. Huge Ponzi scheme, investing in the government. Yet another involuntary tax.
Yes, it's not an investment. If they invested in private stocks they would still be on the hook for stealing the money and ruining businesses but at least they wouldn't have given themselves the power to spend the money instantly on government waste.
There are no assets. If you buy half of Microsoft you have bought rights to assets. When you buy a T bill there is no asset, just the promise that the US government will steal to pay you back.
The reason the other portfolios are going up 20% is because that's inflation. They didn't go up 20% in real value, the currencies went down 1 - 1/120%.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And President Roosevelt wanted to use Social Security’s funds to help pay for government deficits.
Well now I need to make something clear, you do know there is no social security investment fund right? They never invested the SS payments into private stocks. It gets routed straight to the normal federal budget, which we know they don't use for investment. Roosevelt's want came to pass.
If the social security entitlement is going up it's purely arbitrary, probably based on legislation. There is nothing in the bank. EMPTY, your SS money is wasted with the rest.
It's not a safety net, it's just another IOU from a government fantastically deep in debt. No legal recompense is possible either, if they actually need to pay out they'll just dilute the currency which is why it can't outpace inflation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You found the claim that social security (which they have stolen from and has zero assets) is a magic factory of wealth on the order of $1 million per person sane enough to respond to huh?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Those appear to be simple assertions to me, I need something more precise to understand.
How do you define "participation" and how does your given definition imply hypocrisy?
Keep in mind hypocrisy is acting in contradiction to stated principles, and one of Rand's stated principles is the golden rule. In other words, she would not be a hypocrite to shoot back. She was very clear about the moral error being in the "initiation" of force, not counter attacking.
Once you are more precise we can apply your argument to a slave plantation.
Created:
-->
@Athias
No more than one participates in the practice of slavery by failing to go on a hunger strike as a slave.This may provide a financial indemnification, but not a moral one. One is still participating in a redistribution of stolen funds by accepting.
That's what I've done for myself, and my family. Let me tell you, there is still plenty I'm ready to recover.Then any moral position you've taken against taxation and wealth distribution is undermined by that which you've done for yourself and your family.
I see no reason to believe that, please provide an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I do know that the propaganda department of the deep state showed video of split reins spinning, called them whips, and millions of left-tribe sheep believe them as they always do. That's the point.The reason the story gained traction on the left had nothing to do with whether they were whips or split reins, it gained traction because of the conduct of the ice agents.This is yet another example of political pundits seizing on any factual inaccuracy they can find within a story in order to pretend the entire story and everything about it that actually matters should be disregarded. It's a tired dishonest tactic.
You mean like when they act like every election lawsuit was frivolous because one or two asserted some falsehoods?
I agree it's a tired dishonest tactic. BTW the "actions of the ICE agents" was hilariously non-aggressive for people defending a national border from trespassers. That would get you killed in almost any other time and place in human history.
Literally trying to block their way with horses, and the migrants just walk around. That's a joke. Calling it cruel or inappropriately aggressive is clown-world.
You have yet to show any example of wide spread lying or egregious double standards within MSM.
Back to the scope switching fallacy huh?
When there was a list you said "focus on one" when I focused on one, you said "it's not widespread".
The credibility of a news report is not determined by the mere fact that it is a news report, it's determined by the credibility of its sources and the validity of its cumulative picture. You have to think in order to figure that out, not just shut your brain down and not allow any new information in because you don't like where it's coming from or what it concludes.
Bla bla bla, excuses for fake news. New information fine, new assertions: dismissed. That's what happens when you cry wolf.
Lack of evidence is literally the only reason to deny the claims of election fraud and it's hasn't stopped a single left-tribe pundit, propagandist, or government official from calling the election fraud claims "false" or "debunked".It's called the burden of proof. If you're claiming the election was stolen, the burden is on you to prove it.
Except if your a left-tibe news source claiming migrants were whipped. Then it's on everyone to prove that no migrant was ever whipped. Your words:
"In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so"
That's not a hypothetical, that is the entire basis for claiming the election was secure. The people who would be held responsible if it wasn't assured us it was.The basis is because the alternative is to assert a massive nationwide conspiracy that to this day has evaded all detection. That fails the basic Occam's razor test.
Conspiracy size as small as one. Doesn't fail any test. You are throwing a red herring.
The claims of security are (in your own phrasing): We now know the elections were secure because election officials told us so
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Lol Barney isn't a pseudo-christian? Well that has got to be a relief to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes but there are more reliable sources such as the oracle at delphi or chicken bones.Federal sources reported that the tax cuts didn’t bring about more employment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
*SMH* I was actually hoping that this would at least be one area of common ground because this one is just patently falseOk, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips, twirling them around as they threaten to whip them, and in at least one instance shows an ICE agent swinging it by a migrants head as that migrant whips (no pun intended) his head back and falls to the ground.
Where is this video? I've never seen it. The only video I've ever seen was of split reins with 2-3ft spare being windmilled to keep separation.
Some relevant physics: a whip isn't just a strip of material, the linear density needs to continuously decrease from base to tip to convert impulses to very high speeds. It's the high speeds that cause pain.
The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.
Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports (especially headlines and the first paragraph, usually by the last paragraph they will have admitted the facts and rendered the first part and headline dishonest propaganda)
In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so
I don't know that ICE didn't whip any migrants. I don't know that they're not aliens in human form serving the sun god Amun Ra. I do know that the propaganda department of the deep state showed video of split reins spinning, called them whips, and millions of left-tribe sheep believe them as they always do. That's the point.
Don't be ridiculous "We don't know that what the liars said isn't true in some way we have no evidence for", appeal to ignorance. Lack of evidence is literally the only reason to deny the claims of election fraud and it's hasn't stopped a single left-tribe pundit, propagandist, or government official from calling the election fraud claims "false" or "debunked".
(I somehow doubt you would ever accept that from the Biden administration).
That's not a hypothetical, that is the entire basis for claiming the election was secure. The people who would be held responsible if it wasn't assured us it was.
Created:
-->
@Athias
No, it's like being robbed and then accepting installments of repayment using money that was equally stolen from you as anyone else and which would not be returned any other way.It's like being robbed and then accepting installments of repayment using money the robber stole from someone else.
This isn't hard to figure out. Sum up the taxes you've paid to the government, add the value lost to inflation, that's how much they stole. That's how much in government payouts you can accept without being a hypocrite in any way.
That's what I've done for myself, and my family. Let me tell you, there is still plenty I'm ready to recover.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
God obviously doesn't want him to be unbanned yet.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The fact she was on welfare, the system she despised the most, the social system of government payment, that is incredibly inconsistent of her.
If it was true it is not hypocritical even in the slightest.
Her theory is that they stole from her. If someone steals from you, it's not hypocritical to get some of it back.
Created:
[RationalMadman] Are you trying to degrade her for being a member of left-wing society?
That's a myth anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
1. Nick Sandmann as white supremacistDon't know who this is so I'll have to pass on this one
It was a baseless claim. In the media you no doubt frequent they prefix "baseless and false" to claims of election fraud, presumably because to them baseless = false.
Therefore according to the standards of CNN this is a false claim. False += 1
2. Rittenhouse as gun trafficking, murderous white supremacistHe killed two people and was probably a white supremacist. Understand that white supremecy means something very different to minorities and especially black people than it does to white people.
Well white supremacist means something different to me, I say you're a white supremacist. Give me a fucking break. He was cleared of murder, even if he wasn't it was self-defense and that is not murder. He did not traffic guns, he was given a gun at location. TRIPLE FAIL
Baseless and false.
F = 1
F += 1
3. Policeman later died after fire extinguisher beating on January 6They did.
Everyone Biden ever sniffed is going to die later.
Pathetic excuse for the false claim that a police officer was killed by the Jan 6 mob.
F = 2
F += 1
4. Governor Cuomo is a great, great governorOpinion
It is too imprecise to evaluate, but if not killing your elderly is a requirement to be a great governor he fails.
5. Michael Avenatti could become presidentOpinion, and one that could could have seemed plausible to some at the time
It's true.
T += 1
6. Steele Dossier as legit intelligenceIt was every bit as legit as most of the reporting took it for
False, it was reported as evidence instead of "baseless false conspiracy theories". That is the established way to report hearsay accusations without hard evidence (if there was no double standard)
F = 3
F += 1
7. Law enforcement cleared protestors for Trump’s photo opThey did
They did not, they cleared it because they were about to burn down a church. There is no evidence Trump ordered anything of the sort. "baseless false conspiracy theories"
F = 4
F += 1
8. Laptop not a legit story (WaPo was actually on the correct side of this one)The MSM worked with the best information they had at the time.
Uh huh, the deep state lackeys come crawling out of the wood work and are given absolute trust. The right-tribe equivalent would be reporting
"We have claims that Trump had classified documents, but several Jan 6 protestors have signed a letter saying that has all the hallmarks of misinformation so we're not going to report it."
9. ICE whipping migrantsThere were instances of this. How heavily it was reported compared to how often it was happening I don't know.
You have no idea if it happened even once. There was one picture and it had reins not a whip. "baseless false conspiracy theories"
F = 5
F += 1
10. Lab leak theory as “conspiracy theory”This is a misinterpretation of what was widely being covered. The lab leak theory was prevalent among the conspiracy theorists when the evidence was not clear (it still isn't).
Ironic, it is a conspiracy theory; simply one that has become convenient for the deep state as they prepare to lander money through conflict over Taiwan.
It was reported as "baseless false conspiracy theories". That reporting is by the standards of the press now "baseless false conspiracy theories"
F = 6
F += 1
11. “Don’t Say Gay” bill in FloridaIt's not a literal criticism, "don't say gay" is a description of the laws chilling effects, which is accurate.
Yet they didn't call the recent firearms control act the "we're coming for your guns bill". Weird.
12. Inflation as “transitory”Not aware of who was saying this but this sounds like a failed prediction, not a lie.
Yes
13. Columbus police shot an “unarmed” Ma’Khia BryantDon't know who this was, but this sounds like an example of working with incomplete information in the early stages of a story.
That's kinda the point. They assume what they want, publish, if they retract at all it's a little tiny thing nobody ever notices. Net result is that all the sheeple still believe it. You know, like the idea that dominion voting machines changed vote totals even in counties with paper backups.
F = 7
F += 1
14. CRT is not taught in grade schoolsIt's not
It is, it's not called CRT but it is the propaganda CRT advises. This is like saying "scientific racism" isn't taught in schools and then teaching white supremacy. "Oh but don't try to explain genetics, we just tell them they're superior to the beast races" GTFO
F = 8
F += 1
15. Anti lockdown protestors neglect to wear masks; BLM protestors need not wear masks (not a lie but glaring double standard)It's kind of odd to complain about the attention being paid to a lack of masks at an anti mask rally (where obviously no one is wearing a mask) vs a protest against excessive police force where many if not most are wearing masks.
Thou dost red herring. The double standard exists when the same source contradicts apparent principle, not when different sources contradict each other.
F = 9
F += 1
16. BLM protests are “mostly peaceful”They were, just like most of the J6 protesters were peaceful.
True, and this wouldn't be a false claim if they had reported the J6 protest + riot as mostly peaceful so:
F = 10
F += 1 = 11
11/16 false (or more specifically only true given severe double standards)
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
All though that neatly explains all American history before late 2020, it completely fails to provide an excuse to jail the political opponents of the deep state... so try again.Alright I'm calling it, IWRA is too dishonest to answer and I won't anymore. Suffice to say there were on going suits, and it is far from obvious that the existence of ongoing litigation is necessary to transform the purported crime of sending electoral votes into a legal activity (or vice versa).It’s not a crime to send alternate slate of electors. The “real” ones get verified by the executive and state legislatures, so the VP and tellers know that they’re the ones to be counted.
Created:
Alright I'm calling it, IWRA is too dishonest to answer and I won't anymore. Suffice to say there were on going suits, and it is far from obvious that the existence of ongoing litigation is necessary to transform the purported crime of sending electoral votes into a legal activity (or vice versa).
Created:
Your ability to ignore the most important issues in human civilization to focus on tertiary cultural minutia is at times stunning.
Why ask what I want to try when you don't care about the answer and won't even read it?
The more relevant question is why I'm even still responding to you.
Created:
Sounds like true liberalism has never been tried ;)
Created:
and there were no pending court cases when the 2020 alternate electors sent in their votes?[IwantRooseveltagain] No, they had all been decided or thrown out as nonsense
Yet this case was filed December 23rd 2020: https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Favorito-Appellant-Brief-Fulton-Counterfeit-Ballot-Case.pdf
and was only dismissed October 13th 2021: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-dismisses-georgia-lawsuit-alleging-fraud-2020-election-2021-10-13/
(this suit has been revived by the way, anyone who dismissed it on standing is guilty of seditious conspiracy and should be hanged or guillotined IMO)
Which means it was on going for that entire time. Where did you get your fact check from IWRA?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Trump was trying to force through fake electors after the results had already been certified.
So you're saying when the alternate electors sent their votes to congress, the results had not yet been certified?
Hawaii there were ongoing court cases since different counts of the votes came up with different winners.
and there were no pending court cases when the 2020 alternate electors sent in their votes?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hey did you ever figure out of those Hawaii electors sent their documents and the votes were counted before the court case was resolved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, over 3/4 were false (substantially misleading + implication of false factual statements).Reading through the list it’s mostly a combination of opinions, stories that understood properly are true, or stories that may have turned out to be wrong at the end but were reasonable given the information available at the time. So what exactly was the point here?
Maybe the point is that your algorithm for determining what is "reasonable" is broken if you keep thinking reasonable beliefs turn out to be completely wrong (or unsupported).
I'll go further and say the error in your algorithm is that you trust media. It was reasonable to you to trust their framing, you assumed they had reasons. You think the only way to know if something is "baseless" is if propagandists affix it to the front of every repetition of a claim.
Go through that list and mark them T or F and we'll do some basic statistics.
Created:
-->
@WillyB
You can't seem to remember what your own point was. You said he was different because he's a criminal and this was supposed to be a response to my assertion that he's different because he was opposed to the deep state agenda. Now you're saying it's more of the same. Make up your mind or go debate those other assertions you keep making.
Created:
-->
@WillyB
Everyone who signed the declaration of independence was a criminal... if you ask a tory judge.One little problem: he’s a criminal
Now either this is the first time (in a long time) that millions of people can no longer recognize objective crimes, or this is the first time (in a long time) that the deep state is making up crimes out of thin air to attack mainstream political opposition.
Either way, this time is different.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Trump is no less "sponsored" than his predecessors and successor. He didn't impede them at all (his Trade War with China is evidence of that.) The only presidents to actually "impede" were Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy--and with the exception of one, they all have something in common.
There is only one other explanation for the propaganda and weaponisation: He's a deep state plant and this whole thing is a kabuki play that ends in a police state.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
He's the first to have millions of people believe that because they were told to believe that rather than any objectively justifiable interpretation of his statements.President Donald Trump is not the only world leader who is accused of publicly denigrating people based on their racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds.
In other words, he was the first (in a long time) where the lies were so transparent that the deep state media collusion became visible to those without insider knowledge.
Created:
-->
@WillyB
The only reason people don’t think he’s like the others, is because he conned, in most cases, the generally stupid people into thinking he was some kind of sacrificial lamb or martyr.
One little problem: They actually are going after him and did from the start.
The Saudi thing of course makes the original claim seem less plausible, as well as his dealings in Oman too. People need to see past his lies and realise he’s as bad as everyone else
As long as he's not the same side of bad the deep state is he could still be useful. Sometimes you have to arm the USSR if you want to kill the nazis.
Created:
Posted in:
Secession is illegal. It’s unconstitutional.
That is debatable, but if it was true... then those states were still in the union and their electors weren't counted which means the constitution was violated in order for Lincoln to take office.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] They weren’t counted because those 7 states had seceded, genius.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. If they weren't part of the union then what possible (legal) justification for attack was there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's almost like the social contract is void once violated. Indeed if Lincoln didn't say something along the lines of "all rules of the constitution may be set aside in times of war" his actions said it for him.During the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the electoral votes of the Confederate states were not counted.
Created:
Posted in:
Of course they did, you don't end up with multiple sets of dualing electors without somebody discarding the numbers reported to them and using ones they prefer.You don't think either of those candidates asked anyone to "find some votes"?According to your source, no they did not.
“there were wide allegations of electoral fraud, election violence, and other disfranchisement of predominantly Republican Black voters”Apparently, Republicans have been trying to prevent blacks from voting for a very long time.
First you forgot about the civil war, and now you forgot to mention the myth of the "great switch".
So, if there was disenfranchisement, would that mean that the election was I don't know... fraudulent?
Created:
Posted in:
It absolutely is the first time an incumbent President or a candidate for the Presidency tried to cheat
"The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever. Although it is not disputed that Tilden outpolled Hayes in the popular vote, there were wide allegations of electoral fraud, election violence, and other disfranchisement of predominantly Republican Black voters. After a first count of votes, Tilden had won 184 electoral votes to Hayes's 165, with 20 votes from four states unresolved. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, both parties reported their candidate to have won the state. In Oregon, one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for having been an "elected or appointed official." The question of who should have been awarded those electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy."
"To date, it remains the election that yielded the highest voter turnout of the eligible voting-age population in American history, at 82.6%"
Sound familiar?
Common cause: when people are ready to kill each other they turn out, they're also more willing to cheat.
Direct cause: The turnout appears higher because people cast fraudulent ballots inflating the numbers above the accurate count.
You don't think either of those candidates asked anyone to "find some votes"?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
2) Wonder: why the discrepency?
3) Notice the target. Notice that one is using force to ruin everyone's life. The others are just trying to run a business or shop.
4) Discover that terrorists attack civilians, and freedom fighters attack governments
Created:
Why did gavin have to lead an insurrection from the rear like that?
Created:
Posted in:
Did you forget the civil war again IWRA?Even then, when Lincoln was elected we had a peaceful transfer of power. The war came after Lincoln was inaugurated, and it wasn’t to install another president or prevent one from being installed.
Right.... so Jefferson Davis wasn't "another president" I see greyparrot beat me to it.
So we have some police being shoved vs large caliber mortars, but to you that's not precedent because Lincoln was sworn in. Okay...
I'm sure the Jan 6 crowd would have accepted Biden being sworn in as president of New York and California and nothing else if that helps clear things up.
Anyway though this isn't the first time there has been violent disagreement over the future of the federal government, it wasn't the first time people tried to cheat, it wouldn't have been the first time they ignored the electors (or choose electors based on their preference rather than the governors).
It is news worthy though because it's the first time in a long time people were angry enough to do something like this no matter what help they may have had from DOJ false flaggers.
Created:
-->
@WillyB
The swamp was never drained, it got muddier.
It's true it did not get drained. It's unclear whether it got muddier or the swamp monsters got riled up.
Trump is a billionaire, from a billionaire family
True, but he (or his father) made their money without public office and he lost money in office. Although you could argue that his family didn't lose money, I need to investigate this Jared Saudi thing sometime. 2 billion is a ridiculously large amount of money. I assume it's some kind of investment and not payment for service rendered.
Trump was friends with the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein. Textbook establishment.
Just because he swam in the swamp doesn't make him the same. In the end Clinton considered him no friend and he seems to have had no more contact with Epstein than people like Dershowitz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Well, that's it folks. Wrap it up, we're done here. DART helped humanity finally realize was Socrates was saying the whole time.Lets face it, every single human that has ever lived is a blithering fucktard.
Created:
In keeping with DART tradition I'll start with the clip that evoked this comment: https://rumble.com/v36ph89-joe-rogan-points-out-the-left-is-pro-war-the-right-and-left-have-flipped.html
Many have asked how I know there is such a thing as a "deep state" and can infer its motives. This is how, if these were organic interests created by the world views and values of political tribes they wouldn't switch so rapidly and with such perfect inverse images.
George Bush was a deep state puppet. Colin Powell and Cheney were probably deep state influencers.
Obama either puppet or influencer.
Trump was not deep state and impeded them
Biden is either a puppet or influencer, probably used to be influencer
This is the true dynamic of our age. The social issues of "conservative" vs "liberal" is a puppet show for the ignorant masses. The only real choice is between deep state and non-deep state.
Only the policy on military spending, inflation, and foreign domination matter to the deep state. Only those who threaten that agenda are labeled racists. Only those who threaten that agenda are so "dangerous" as to wararnt subversion of elections beyond mass propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Some idiots may think that the first time we had a transfer of power that wasn’t peaceful in the United States isn’t newsworthy, but that’s because they are idiots.
Did you forget the civil war again IWRA?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That I believe is correct, and different from the normal right-tribe narrative. Simple 'greed' doesn't explain all. Not for Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or this.What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?Manifest Destiny. The bedrock of all American Morality.
They think they're the good guys. If they get to retire on a million bucks well that's well deserved for all of that "stability" and "democracy" they bring. If they had to provoke Russia into a war by breaking their word, surround it with bases, puppetting Ukraine through insurrection well sometimes you have to do ugly things to make the world better. We need them on that wall. We can't handle the truth.
Everybody has got to sleep somehow you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I never said that, I said that just as you feel comfortable dismissing Shokin's statements because you believe they are self-serving so I too can infer that from the timing even technically true statements may have served as fertilization for actions aimed at ulterior motives.If everybody is J-walking and one out of a thousand people have the mayor lambasting them for it (followed by all the papers reporting that the mayor is lambasting this person) that is suspicious. If you find out later that this one J-walker was in someway presenting a problem to the mayor's agenda ulterior motives are a probable conclusion.Your analogy starts off with “if everyone is J-walking…”. so you begin with ‘everyone is corrupt but only Shokin takes the heat’. You then assert the timing, a reference to the allegation that Shokin was “in the way” of another conspiracy. And these two things justify why as you allege, Shokin’s removal for corruption wasn’t actually a removal for corruption.Essentially, you began with the conspiracy and worked your way backwards. Can you provide evidence for any of the premises you are starting off with here?
You admit Shokin is corrupt. You admit Ukraine is corrupt. You admit Zlochevsky is corrupt. The only people you don't admit are corrupt are the most unequivocally corrupt: the non-Ukrainians with zero engineering experience, providing no capital, offering no service except corrupt services from western governments on the board of Burisma.
Everybody is J-walking, one guy gets arrested; turns out that one guy refused a shakedown and the cop is dirty (i.e. his family is getting money from the shakedown operation).
There are no missing premises, the unusual attack is a mystery in search of a motivation, when the motivation is found conspiracy becomes the explanation with the least assumptions.
I never said that the majority of contemporary outlets denied Shokin was corrupt. I'm saying I read them, and they all said the same thing because they were all reporting on the same original source of information namely a manufactured scandal which did not (as far as any evidence shows) predate by any significant margin the US ambassador's complaint and the UK police types throwing up their hands.Provide evidence that the scandal was manufactured
I don't need to, it is sufficient that it is possible.
If this propaganda/psyop was the only reason to believe in the conspiracy then direct evidence would be required. The first, best, and still unconquered reason to believe in a conspiracy is the enormous unlikelihood of Hunter Biden collecting money in the one country and from the one company that was tangled in government machinations his father was manipulating.
That's your question, not mine. These are my questions:Was Shokin an impediment to the plans of the deep state?Please provide evidence that there was a “deep state” and what their plans were.
That's the work of weeks to be complete. I have laid out their likely plans in regards to burisma and Shokin in this thread. I'll not break my back for someone who shows no willingness to apply a fair objective eye to the matter.
Was Shokin an impediment to Biden's (or any other DC swamp monster) personal gain?Please provide evidence that Biden had anything personal to gain from Shokin’s removal. And no, you don’t get to beg the question by asserting Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunter as evidence that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter.
So... are you saying Joe Biden wasn't financially involved with Hunter? That Hunter wasn't being paid by burisma? Oh right you claim "well cause there was no investigation no reason to fire Shokin, just weird coincidence that within a single year this happened"
See that's why it's not worth going through diffuse and circumstantial evidence with you. Circumstantial evidence requires the ability to evaluate the probability of coincidence and relate it to all other probabilities, such as the possibility Shokin lied about investigating Burisma to save his legacy.
What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?We’re taking about whether Joe Biden was corruptly involving himself in Hunter’s behalf.
Which by the standard of Trump's impeachment is already beyond doubt. For Trump it was enough that there was personal gain that could be had.
Once again, whatever your opinion of it is, the US has been involving itself in international affairs for about a century now. That has nothing to do with Joseph Robinette Biden.
How can you say that with a straight face? A national prosecutor is not an international office and Since Joe R Biden bragged about such interference it does have something to do with him now doesn't it?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
There's a million racist web sites and Einstein here goes to a DEBATE site expecting an echo chamber for racist hate speech.When you just say "racist" and nothing else, that's you desperately hoping for an echo chamber.I just love how racists spew hatred towards minorities, attacking, disparaging, and disenfranchising others untill they hear the word racist, and then they whine like crybaby little bitches, "boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim, they are discriminating against me". What a joke.
Yet I'm not laughing, in fact what you're doing here is quite disgusting.
"spew hatred" "attacking" "disparaging" "disenfranchising"
The claim is that a falsehood has been advanced. You are in essence claiming that the OP claim is so false that OP knows its false and FURTHER that the only possible motivation for knowingly making false claims is racial hatred. You don't discuss reasons, you don't care about the enormous burden of proof you incur by such assertions.
That attitude doesn't belong on a debate site, it is deep within the definition of bigotry, and it is a threat to human enlightenment in general.
Created: